A critical appraisal of guidelines for electronic communication between patients and clinicians: the need to modernize current recommendations

Use of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) in Gerontology: Benefits, Considerations and a Promising Future

Electronic medical records (EMRs) have many benefits in clinical research in gerontology, enabling data analysis, development of prognostic tools and disease risk prediction. EMRs also offer a range of advantages in clinical practice, such as comprehensive medical records, streamlined communication with healthcare providers, remote data access, and rapid retrieval of test results, ultimately leading to increased efficiency, enhanced patient safety, and improved quality of care in gerontology, which includes benefits like reduced medication use and better patient history taking and physical examination assessments. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) approaches on EMRs can further improve disease diagnosis, symptom classification, and support clinical decision-making. However, there are also challenges related to data quality, data entry errors, as well as the ethics and safety of using AI in healthcare. This article discusses the future of EMRs in gerontology and the application of AI and ML in clinical research. Ethical and legal issues surrounding data sharing and the need for healthcare professionals to critically evaluate and integrate these technologies are also emphasized. The article concludes by discussing the challenges related to the use of EMRs in research as well as in their primary intended use, the daily clinical practice.

A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for diagnostic imaging in the spinal cord injury

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious health problem which carries a heavy economic burden. Imaging technologies play an important role in the diagnosis of SCI. Although several organizations have developed guidelines for diagnostic imaging of SCI, their quality has not yet been systematically assessed.

PURPOSE

We aim to conduct a systematic review to appraise SCI guidelines and summarize their recommendations for diagnostic imaging of SCI.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, some guideline-specific databases (e.g., Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) and Google Scholar from January 2000 to January 2022. We included guidelines developed by nationally recognized organizations. If multiple versions could be obtained, we included the latest one. We appraised included guidelines using the AGREE II instrument which contains six domains (e.g., scope and purpose). We also extracted recommendations and assessed their supporting evidence using levels of evidence (LOE). The evidence was categorized as A (the best quality), B, C, and D (the worst quality).

RESULTS

Seven guidelines (2008 to 2020) were included. They all received the lowest scores in the domain of applicability. All guidelines (7/7, 100%) recommended magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with SCI or SCI without radiographic abnormality (SCIWORA). A total of 12 recommendations involving patient age (e.g., adult and child patients), timing of MRI (e.g., as soon as possible and in the acute period), symptoms indicated for MRI (e.g., a stiff spine and midline tenderness, suspected disc and posterior ligamentous complex injury, and neurological deficit), and types of MRI (e.g., T2-weighted imaging and diffusion tensor imaging) were extracted. Among them, the LOE was C in nine (75%) recommendations and D in three (25%) recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven guidelines were included in the present systematic review, and all of them showed the worst applicability scores in the AGREE II instrument. They all weakly recommended MRI for patients with suspected SCI or SCIWORA based on a low LOE.

A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines on pharmacological treatments for spinal cord injury

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Spinal cord injury brings devastating consequences and huge economic burden. Different authoritative organizations have developed different guidelines for pharmacological treatments of spinal cord injury, but there is a lack of a critical appraisal of them.

PURPOSE

To systematically review and appraise guidelines regarding their recommendations for pharmacological treatments for spinal cord injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 2000 to January 2022 as well as guideline-specific databases (eg, Congress of Neurological Surgeons) and Google Scholar. We included the most updated guideline containing evidence-based recommendations or consensus-based recommendations developed by specific authoritative organizations if multiple versions were available. We appraised guidelines through the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, 2nd edition instrument consisting of six domains (eg, applicability). With supporting evidence, recommendations were classified as: for, against, neither for nor against. We utilized an evidence assessment system to categorize the quality of supporting evidence as poor, fair, or good.

RESULTS

Eight guidelines developed from 2008 to 2020 were included, but all of them scored lowest in the domain of applicability among all six domains. Twelve pharmacological agents (eg, methylprednisolone) were studied. For methylprednisolone, three guidelines (3/8=37.5%) recommended for (one evidence-based and two consensus-based), three (3/8=37.5%) recommended against (all evidence-based), and two (2/8=25%) recommended neither for nor against. For monosialotetrahexosylganglioside (GM-1), one guideline (1/4=25%) recommended for (consensus-based), one (1/4=25%) recommended against (evidence-based), and two (2/4=50%) recommended neither for nor against. For other agents (eg, minocycline), most guidelines (3/5=60%) recommended neither for nor against, one (1/5=20%) recommended against naloxone (evidence-based) and nimodipine (evidence-based), and one (1/5=20%) recommended for neural growth factor (consensus-based). The quality of most of the supporting evidence was poor, and the rest was fair.

CONCLUSIONS

There were inconsistencies among recommendations for methylprednisolone and GM-1. Evidence-based recommendations tended to recommend against, whereas consensus-based recommendations tended to recommend for.

A critical appraisal of clinical practice guidelines for management of four common complications after spinal cord injury

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Complications such as pressure sores, pulmonary infection, urinary tract infection (UTI), and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are common after spinal cord injury (SCI). These have serious consequences for patients' physical, social, and vocational well-being. Several authoritative organizations have developed guidelines for managing these complications after SCI.

PURPOSE

We aim to systematically review and appraise guidelines on the management of four common complications (pressure sores, pulmonary infection, UTI, and VTE) after SCI as well as to summarize relevant recommendations and assess the quality of their supporting evidence.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science, as well as guideline-specific databases (e.g., National Guideline Clearinghouse) and Google Scholar, from January 2000 to January 2022. We included the most updated guidelines developed by specific authoritative organizations. We evaluated the included guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation 2nd edition instrument, which measures six domains (e.g., applicability). Recommendations extracted from guidelines were categorized as for, against, or neither for nor against. An evidence assessment was adopted to classify the quality of supporting evidence as poor, fair, or good.

RESULTS

Eleven guidelines from 2005 to 2020 were included, all of which, among the six domains, scored lowest in the domain of applicability. For pressure sores, guidelines recommended for skin inspection, repositioning, and the use of pressure reduction equipment as preventive measures and dressings, debridement, and surgery as treatment measures. For pulmonary infection, guidelines recommended for physical (e.g., the use of an insufflation-exsufflation device) and pharmacological measures (e.g., the use of bronchodilators). For UTI, guidelines recommended for antibiotics as a treatment measure but recommended against cranberries, methenamine salts, and acidification or alkalinization agents as preventive measures. For VTE prophylaxis, five guidelines recommended for low molecular weight heparin (LMWH). Three guidelines recommended against unfractionated heparin, whereas one guideline recommended for it. Most of the supporting evidence was of poor quality (130/139), and the rest was of fair quality (9/139).

CONCLUSIONS

For pressure sores, pulmonary infection, and UTI, evidence of poor to fair quality indicated consistent recommendations for prevention and treatment measures. For VTE, LMWH was consistently recommended, whereas recommendations on the use of unfractionated heparin were controversial.

Twenty-first Century Bedside Manner: Exploring Patient-Centered Communication in Secure Messaging with Cancer Patients

Patient-centered communication (PCC) is integral to providing high-quality health care and is recommended to be incorporated during face-to-face consultations. Electronic communication, such as the use of secure messaging (SM) within patient portals, is a popular form of patient-provider communication, but preliminary studies have shown that PCC is rarely utilized by providers in SM. As a consequence, the patient-provider relationship can be negatively affected, especially for cancer patients who have greater electronic health information needs than the general population. Therefore, our objective was to determine the importance of SM to cancer patients and to identify which attributes of PCC are preferred to be incorporated into secure messages. Five focus groups were conducted, comprised of patients with a current or previous cancer diagnosis (three all-female; two all-male). Participants recalled their own experiences and reviewed simulated messages. Three main topics emerged from the thematic analysis: (1) the normalization of SM, (2) SM quality can affect perceptions of care, and (3) patients need guidance. Overall, participants valued the ability to communicate with their care team using SM and indicated that electronic communication may have the potential to have just as big of an impact on a patient's care than in-person communication.

Social Media in the Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Clinical Space

Parents and families of children with cancer and blood disorders increasingly turn to social media to connect with families facing similar challenges. These multidirectional interactions on social media are not only sources of psychosocial support but frequently sources of medical information. Consequently, such interactions have the potential to meaningfully impact the relationships between parents, children, and pediatric hematology/oncology providers. The 3 case studies analyzed here illustrate the spectrum of ethical and communication issues that arise when families' use of social media enters the pediatric clinical space, including questions related to trust and mistrust, misinformation, patient privacy and confidentiality, and allocation of resources, including time. Ideal approaches to resolving dilemmas related to parental social media use are those that maintain respect, build trust, and acknowledge the changing culture. Social media use is now the norm. Promoting transparent discussions of its use between families and health professionals is, therefore, the key to optimizing health outcomes for children whose parents turn to social media. Mutual respect, collaboration, and long-term relationships are also potential antidotes to the spread of misinformation and mistrust through social media.

Insecure messaging: how clinicians approach potentially problematic messages from patients

OBJECTIVE

Secure messaging has become an integrated function of patient portals, but misuse of secure messaging by both patients and clinicians can lead to miscommunication and errors, such as overlooked urgent messages. We sought to uncover variations in clinician approaches and responses to messaging with patients.

METHODS

In this two-part study, 20 primary care clinicians (1) composed message responses to five hypothetical patient vignettes and messages and (2) were subsequently interviewed for their perspectives on appropriate circumstances for secure messaging. Messages and interviews were analyzed for themes.

RESULTS

Clinicians have different experiences with, and perceptions of, secure messaging. The messages the clinicians wrote were uniformly respectful, but differed in degrees of patient-centeredness and level of detail. None of the clinicians found their messaging workload to be unmanageable. From the interviews, we found divergent clinician perspectives about when to use secure messaging and how to respond to emotional content.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians have different opinions about the appropriateness of secure messaging in response to specific medical issues. Our results noted a desire and need for greater guidance about secure messaging. This aspect of informatics education warrants greater attention in clinical practice.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

We summarize the types of issues raised by the participants yet to be addressed by existing guidelines. Further guidance from hospitals, professional societies, and other institutions that govern clinician behavior on the appropriateness and effectiveness of delivering care through secure messaging may aid clinicians and patients.

American College of Physicians Ethical Guidance for Electronic Patient-Physician Communication: Aligning Expectations

Communication is critical to strong patient-physician relationships and high-quality health care. In recent years, advances in health information technology have altered how patients and doctors interact and communicate. Increasingly, e-communication outside of in-person clinical encounters occurs in many ways, including through e-mail, patient-portals, texting, and messaging applications. This American College of Physicians (ACP) position paper provides ethics and professionalism guidance for these forms of e-communication to help maintain trust in patient-physician relationships and the profession and alignment between patient and physician expectations.

Communication About Health Information Technology Use Between Patients and Providers

BACKGROUND

Although growing, the prevalence of the use of health information technology (HIT) by patients to communicate with their providers is not well understood on the population level, nor whether patients are communicating with their providers about their use of HIT.

OBJECTIVE

To understand whether patients are communicating with their providers about HIT use and the patient characteristics associated with the communication.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, self-administered survey of a sample of patients across the state of Indiana.

PARTICIPANTS

Nine hundred seventy adult participants from across Indiana, 54% female and 79.5% white.

MAIN MEASURES

The survey included sections assessing health information-seeking behavior, use of health information technology, and discussions with doctors about the use of HIT.

KEY RESULTS

The survey had a 12% response rate. Sixty-three percent of respondent reported going to the Internet as the first source when seeking health information, while only 19% of respondent reported their doctor was their first source. When communicating with doctors electronically, 31% reported using an electronic health record messaging system, 24% used email, and 18% used text messaging. Only 39% of respondents reported having had any conversation about HIT use with their providers.

CONCLUSIONS

There remain many unmet opportunities for patients and providers to communicate about HIT use. More guidance for patients and care teams may both help facilitate these conversations and promote optimal use, such as recommendations to ask simple clarification questions and minimize inefficient, synchronous communication when unnecessary.

Too Many Don'ts and Not Enough Do's? A Survey of Hospitals About Their Portal Instructions for Patients

BACKGROUND

Patient portals present the opportunity to expand patients' access to their clinicians and health information. Yet patients and clinicians have expressed the need for more guidance on portal and secure messaging procedures to avoid misuse. Little information is currently available concerning whether and how expectations of portal and messaging usage are communicated to patients.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the information made available to patients about patient portal use, and to assess ease in accessing such information.

DESIGN

A national survey of publicly available portal information from hospital websites. The study team followed up with phone calls to each hospital to request any additional patient-directed materials (e.g., pamphlets) not located in the web search.

PARTICIPANTS

A random sample of 200 acute-care hospitals, 50 from each of four US Census regions, selected from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Hospital Compare dataset.

MAIN MEASURES

Availability of patient portals, secure messaging, and related functionality; the content and ease of access to patient-directed information about portals.

KEY RESULTS

Of the hospitals sampled, 177 (89%) had a patient portal; 116 (66%) of these included secure messaging functionality. Most portals with secure messaging (N = 65, 58%) did not describe appropriate patient messaging conduct. Although many included disclaimers that the service is not for emergencies, 23 hospitals only included this within the fine prints of their "Terms and Conditions" section. Content analysis of additional patient-directed materials revealed a focus on logistical content, features of the portals, and parameters of use. Of the three categories, logistical content (e.g., creating an account) was the most thorough.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most of the sampled hospitals had patient portals, many fail to educate patients fully and set expectations for secure messaging. To improve patient engagement and minimize harm, hospitals and clinicians need to provide more information and set clearer guidelines for patients.